Prison Phone Justice

2
3
4

SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON FOR KING COUNTY

5
6
7
~
!

SANDY JUDD, and ZURAYA WRIGHT,
for themselves, and on behalf of all
similarly situated persons,

NO.

CO-;t - 1"1 S("S - 5

5EA

8

Plaintiffs,

I

: 9

10
11
12
13
14
15

COMPLAINT -CLASS ACTION

v.
AMERICAN TELEPHONE AND
TELEGRAPH COMPANY; GTE
NORTHWEST INC.; CENTURYTEL
TELEPHONE UTILmES, INC.; NORTHWEST TELECOMMUNICAnONS, INC.,
d/b/ a PI1 COMMUNICATIONS, INC.;
U.S. WEST COMMUNICATIONS, INC.;
T-NETIX, INC.,

16

Defendants.

17
~.

18
19
20
21
22
23
24

:-

1.

-- .. PARTIES, JURISDICTION AND VENUE .

Plaintiff Sandy Judd is a resident of Snohomish County,

Washington. She has received and paid for intrastate long-distance collect calls from
Washington State prison inmates.
2.

Plaintiff Zuraya Wright is a resident of Lake Worth, Florida. She

received and paid for interstate long-distance collect calls from a Washington State
prison inmate before rate disclosure was first offered to her in November of 1999.

25
26
SIRIANNI & YOUTZ

COMPLAINT -CLASS AcrION -1

701 FImi AVENUE. SUrrE 3410
SEATI1.E. WASHINGTON 98104-7032
(206) 223-0303

3.
2

3
4

Jurisdiction is appropriate in this court because the defendants do

business in the state of Washington, and because the amount in controversy exceeds
$300.00. Venue is proper because the non-resident defendants have been served in

King County, Washington.

5
6
7

II. NATURE OF CASE

4.

Since at least 1992, the Washington State Department of

Corrections has contracted with private operator service providers," also known as
II

18

!•

"alternate operator services companies," to provide "0+" operator services on the

r

I
: 9

10
11
12
13
14
15
16

17
~.

18
19
20

payphones used by prison inmates incarcerated in the State of Washington. Prison
inma!es are required to use the "0+" operator service provider assigned by contract to
the prison from which the call is placed, and may place only collect calls.
5.

contracting with operator service providers have been required by state law to assure
appropriate disclosure of rates charged to consumers for services provided while
connecting both intrastate and interstate long-distance telephone calls. However, the
defendants, all telecommunications companies and operator service providers, have
failed to assure appropriate disclosure of rates to the plaintiffs and others similarly
situated, and con1h"tue'"to fail to do so for intrastate long-distance telephone calls. The
defendants have provided disclosure of rates for at least some interstate calls from
Washington prison inmates only since November of 1999.

21
22
23
24
25

Since at least 1988, telecommunications companies acting as or

..t'

III. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

6.

Definition of Class. The clasS' consists of all individuals who have

received one or more long-distance intrastate or interstate collect calls from one or
more Washington State prison inmates since June 20, 1996, except for those
individuals who have received only interstate collect calls from Washington State

26
SIRIANNI & YOUTZ

COMPLAINT -CLASS ACrION - 2

701 FlF11i AVENUE. SUITE 3410
SEAl"IU, WASHINGTON 98104-7032
(206) 223-0303

prison inmates after November of 1999, and to whom timely disclosure of rates was
2

offered.

3
4

5
6

7.

and paid for intrastate long-distance collect calls from Washington State prison
inmates. Named plaintiff Zuraya Wright received and paid for interstate collect calls
from ~ Washington State prison inmate between June 20, 1996 and November of 1999.

7
18

•

i

Class Representatives. Named plaintiff Sandy Judd has received

8.

Size of Class. There are approximately 14,000 prison inmates

currently incarcerated in the State of Washington.

Each inmate is permitted to

I

.; 9
10

11
12

13

maintain a calling list of multiple family members and acquaintances. Every person
who is or has been on any incarcerated person's calling list since 1996 is a potential
class member, including family, friends, attorneys and news organizations. The class
is expected to number in the tens or hundreds of thousands and is so large that joinder
of all members is impracticable.

14

15
16
17

9.

20
21

22

23
24
25

This action requires a

determination of whether the defendants assured appropriate rate disclosure to the
class member recipients of inmate-initiated intrastate and interstate long-distance
collect telephone calls as required by RCW §80.36.S20 and RCW §80.36.S30.

18
19

Common Questions of Law and Fact.

10. :- Defendants Have Acted On Grounds

Class.

Gener~lly

Applicable to the

The defendants complete inmate-initiated collect telephone calls to call

recipients, and have consistently failed to make proper disclosures. The defendants
have acted on grounds generally applicable to the class. Certification is therefore
proper under CR 23(b)(2).

11.

Questions of Law and Fact Common to the Class Predominate

Over Individual Issues. The claims of many individual class members are too small to
justify filing and prosecuting the claims separately. Thus, any interest that individual

26

SIRIANNI & YOUTZ
701 FIFTH AVENUE. SUITE 3410

COMPLAIN:r -CLASS ACTION - 3

SEA1TLE. WASHINGrON 98104-7032
(206) 223-0303

members of the class may have in individually controlling the prosecution of separate
2
3
4

5
6

7

actions is outweighed by the efficiency of the class action mechanism. This action can
be most efficiently prosecuted as a class action in King County Superior Court, where
the defendants do business. Issues as to the defendants' conduct towards members of
the class predominate over questions, if any, unique to members of the class.
Certification is therefore additionally proper under CR 23(b)(3).
12.

Class CounseL

Plaintiffs have retained experienced and

competent class counsel.
IV. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
10

11
12

13
14

15
16
17
18
19

20
21

22
23
24

25

13.

The defendants are telecommunications companies. On March 16,

1992, all of the defendants except for T-Netix, Inc. contracted with the Washington
Department of Corrections to provide operator services for inmate payphones. The
parties have extended this contract through four amendments.

The fourth

amendment, which went into effect in March of 1999, adds T-Netix, Inc. as an operator
service provider at some facilities.
14.

Throughout the Class period, family members, attorneys and

other persons have been unable to speak to Washington State prison inmates by
telephone, exceprru; recipients of operator-assisted collect calls.. Recipients are billed
for these calls by the operator service provider assigned by contract to the prison from
which the call originates.
15.

Rates for intrastate long-dGtance collect calls are not made

available to recipients over the phone prior to the receipt of an inmate-initiated call,
nor are recipients given a separate number to call in order to learn the rates charged.
16.

Rates for at least some interstate calls have been made available

over the phone starting sometime in November of 1999. Prior to that time, recipients

26

SIRIANNI &: YOUTZ
COMP~-C~AcnON-4

701 FIFni AVENUE. SUlTE 3410
SEATILE, WASHINGTON 98104-7032
(206) 223-0003

of inmate-initiated interstate calls could not access rates prior to receipt of the call, and
2

also were not provided with any information on how to obtain the applicable rates.

3

V. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

4

5

FIRST CLAIM-VIOLATION OF THE WASHINGTON CONSUMER
PROTECTION ACT, RCW 19.86 et seq.

6

17.

Plaintiffs re-allege paragraphs 1 through 16, above.

7

18.

The defendants' repeated violations of RCW §80.36.S20 constitute

,,8

per se violations of the Washington Consumer Protection Act, RCW §19.86 et seq.,

f

; 9

pursuant to RCW §80.36.S30.

The defendants have engaged in, and continue to

10

engage in, unfair or deceptive acts or practices in trade or commerce in violation of the

11

Wasliington State Consumer Protection Act. Such conduct affects the public interest,

12

and has caused injury to the named plaintiffs and the plaintiffs' class.

13

Plaintiffs and the plaintiff class are entitled to damages as defined

19.

14

in RCW §80.36.S30, and treble damages under RCW §19.86.090, along with costs of

15

suit and attorney fees.
SECOND CLAIM-INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

16
17

20.

18

21.

Plaintiffs re-allege paragraphs 1 through 19, above.
~

Plaintiffs
and the plaintiff
class are entitled to an injunction under
..

19

RCW §19.86.090," under the common law, and under any othe'r applicable laws, to

20

enjoin further violations of RCW §80.36.S20.
VI. DEMAND FOR RELIEF

21

22

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs request tha~ this Court:

23

1.

Enter judgment in favor of

~laintiffs

and the plaintiff class for

24

damages in an amount to be proven at trial due to the defendants' failure to assure

25

appropriate disclosure of rates charged under RCW §80.36 et seq. and RCW §19.86 et

26
SIRIANNI & YOUTZ
COMP~-C~ACTION-5

701 FIFTH AVENUE. SUITE 3410
SEATl1.E. WASHINGTON 98104-7032
(206) 223-0303

.'

.

seq., including presumed damages under RCW §80.36.S30 for each violation, and
2
3
.' 4
5
6
7
;8

1

.~

treble damages up to $10,000 to each class member for each violation;
Enter judgment in favor of plaintiffs and the plaintiff class, and

2.

against the defendants, enjoining the defendants from further violations of
RCW §80.36.S20;
3.

Award plaintiffs and the plaintiff class their attorney fees; and

4.

Award such other relief as is just and proper.

DATED: June 29, 2000.

9

SIRIANNI & YOUTZ

10
11

Chris R. Youtz (WSBA #7786)
Jonathan P. Meier (WSBA #19991)
Marie E. Gryphon (WSBA #29242)
Attorneys for Plaintiffs .

12
13
14
15
16
17

."

18

-

.-

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
SIRIANNI & YOUTZ
701 FIFTH AVENUE. SUITE 3410

COMPLAINT -CLASS ACTION - 6

SEAlTLE, WASHINGTON 98104-7032

(206) 223-0303